US explains why it is not shooting down missiles over Ukraine as it does over Israel
www.pravda.com.ua
The United States will not deploy the THAAD medium-range missile interceptor system near Ukraine to shoot down Russian missiles and drones, as it does for Israel, because the Russian-Ukrainian war and the war in the Middle East are different.
  • Kyrgizion@lemmy.world
    176·
    18 days ago

    Cowards. The Ukrainians are laying down their lives in defense of Europe and they can’t even get this, but a genocidal maniac who would sacrifice millions to remain in power gets all the aid he wants.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      80·
      18 days ago

      IDK, this seems like the DoD actually doing their jobs (for once).We’ve given tons of anti-missile systems to ukraine. Deploying THAAD to a conflict where we can’t actively deploy US troops alongside it is a serious intelligence risk, and it doesn’t fill a particular role thats missing in Ukraine. Russia hasn’t been using ballistic missiles of the size THAAD would even be effective against. Patriot, MANPAD, aerial launched and even hera systems have been extremely effective, and NATO continues to supply those systems for Ukraine.

        • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
          9·
          17 days ago

          “Alright, thank you for attending this meeting of the Member States of the NATO Alliance Countries Which Border Ukraine, which of you would like to be the first one to base an active combat emplacement (and 100% viable military target) on their soil? Did I mention it wasn’t going to be very effective, and costs $12 Million per missile?”
          “…”
          "Anyone? "

          Look I’m clearly being sarcastic, but out of Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Hungary or Poland, which one is your pick to throw themselves into a meatgrinder war of attrition all while the US is split 50/50 on electing someone who has actively called for the US to back out of NATO?

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            8·
            17 days ago

            Don’t act like Poland wouldn’t volunteer to man it themselves. Lithuania would demand one and tell us not to worry about researching a ground to ground missile conversion for them.

            At any rate, I was just answering the technical feasibility. If you want to get political, then why don’t we have a 100 guys in Kiev with one of these batteries? We’re willing to defend a genocidal regime but not a country literally fighting for it’s existence?

            • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
              8·
              16 days ago

              But neither Poland nor Lithuania… are doing that. And they totally could be doing that. And if we’re ignoring the political feasibility of deploying a THAAD, why wouldn’t we just put it in Ukraine? Or, hell, why not just send US forces into ukraine, since it’s pretty clear we could roflstomp russia in a couple days? A couple carrier groups in the black sea and this conflict would be over comically fast.

              Look you make a point, but I’m not sure what you’re actually trying to say with it. Do the now years of financial, humanitarian, political and military aid the US has given Ukraine count for nothing? The fact that we’re getting our dicks stuck in the middle east again (and chugging so much Israeli Genocide Bathwater we’re at risk of succumbing to zionist water toxemia while we do it) has very little to do with the continuing support the US is giving Ukraine. It’s still a damn hard battle, but the US has been giving them tools that they are using incredibly effectively. A THAAD system being deployed to Ukraine would be: a serious escalation with russia (who will not be happy with US anti-ballistic missile systems on the border, a point they’ve made clear for years), an astounding investment of an incredibly expensive and very limited-scope platform that is vulnerable without the supporting military ecosystem, and minimally effective since the kinds of missiles THAAD was designed to counter (realistically just SBMs) are barely being used by russia in this conflict.

              There are real, credible reasons why the US has not done this, and I sure was sarcastic at you about your suggestion. I’m sorry about that, I kinda assumed you were a troll. If you’re serious about this, you should stop and consider that a war can’t be separated from the political realities that surround it, not least because if we could do that wars would be rendered pointless and we’d never have them and raytheon would go out of business.
              …
              Hang on what am I saying that sounds great, I’m gonna start saying it too. Maybe if we convince enough people it’ll actually happen. I mean, it’s a better plan than being shitty at random well-meaning-but-off-the-mark-on-some-obscure-details internet commenters on a niche social media website like I’m doing right now.

            • Vespair@lemm.ee
              41·
              17 days ago

              Just a tip, nobody is ever going to accept a youtube video as a valid source. Nobody is going to spend 10+ minutes potentially watching some bullshit propaganda just to see if it even contains anything relevant to your claim. It could be the most perfect, well-sourced, undeniably-accurate youtube video in the history of videos, but literally nobody is going to watch it when brought up as a source for a claim on Lemmy or similar sites.

              I’m not trying to be a dick here, I’m being genuine. If you think there is actually vital information that people should know, you absolutely need to find a verifiable text-based source of that information. Period. Of course I can’t say if that applies in your case or not because as previously stated, nobody, myself included, will ever click on a youtube video as a source for a claim, so I can’t speak to whatever you’re trying to spout.

            • The Assman@sh.itjust.works
              27·
              17 days ago

              These are the same guys who went to North Korea, you know, the place where owning a kdrama DVD will get your whole family executed, and basically said, “it’s not so bad idk what the fuss is about.”

              Let’s see a source that isn’t from authoritarian apologists.

        • MagicShel@lemmy.zipEnglish
          29·
          17 days ago

          Just stop with the conspiracy bullshit. If you believe none of it, you’ll be right 98% of the time. There’s not much else in life with such certainty.

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    44·
    18 days ago

    Ukraine has recieved several anti missile systems from the US, but do not man them as in Isreal. I suppose if US Troops were killed by the Russians in an attack, then all kinds of escalating shit would happen.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      23·
      18 days ago

      What kind if escalation does putin have though? Hes bombing civilians, schools and hospitals. And the nUcLeAr saber rattling has been used so much the saber is all dull.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
          13·
          17 days ago

          Article 5 requires co-defense an attack occurs in the territory of NATO nations (or places occupied by members when NATO was created). It doesn’t cover US forces getting put in harms way and attacked in a non-member country. It doesn’t even cover troops getting attacked in Hawaii.

            • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
              6·
              17 days ago

              I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with this comment, but NATO was in Afghanistan because the US mainland was attacked, not because some soldiers got attacked in a foreign country.

              • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
                1·
                17 days ago

                NATO joined the US in Afghanistan well after 9/11. Fact is NATO will respond to the attack of any member’s forces, if in their homeland or not. At sea, for instance.

                • Zaktor@sopuli.xyzEnglish
                  9·
                  17 days ago

                  That’s just not true. These aren’t arcane pieces of information, they’re bureaucracy from an international treaty. You can just go read the NATO treaty, which defines what an attack is (Article 6). Or go read the history of the NATO in Afghanistan. Article 5 was invoked for the first and only time on September 12th not because troops got hurt later. Remember how the same thing didn’t happen in any of America’s other wars?

                  NATO will respond to attacks on forces at sea, but only in the North Atlantic or Mediterranean. It’s not a general “if you hurt an American soldier anywhere” treaty.